Something has gone seriously wrong in the minds of many Catholics, who cannot say "this is a bad person who abuses authority and needs to repent for his own soul's sake" without concocting hare-brained theories to the effect that a bad person never had any authority. I think it's the general failure of teaching about authority that characterizes all modern thought, signally including Counter-Reformation theories of the papacy.
Regardless, it's ugly and stupid.
It's the mirror image of the ugliness and stupidity of refusing to say someone is wicked and abusive *because* he has authority!
"You're not my real daddy" (or mommy), shouts the child in the grocery store (stereotypically; mine just silently bolted whenever they were dissatisfied and I had to go find them. Oh I remember the time one refused to leave the cat food aisle without a stack of cat food for the cat he wished I would get him but fortunately when you get to the checkout you can simply say to the cashier "we are not buying *this*" and they set it aside.)
But I also think it's a pendulum swing from the previous teaching about authority, which put way too much emphasis on blind obedience, or otherwise substituting the brain of those in authority for those under them. It's certainly not the Thomistic view of authority, but it was very popular, in the Church, for a long time.
With this view of authority ensconced, a rational person will either reject authority or will reject bad or stupid authority figures as having valid authority. God cannot command blind obedience to someone who will dump you in a pit. So either, the obedience part must be wrong, or the someone who will dump you in a pit must not actually be an authority.
Simultaneously teaching both obedience, and that it definitely cannot be blind, is hard, therefore it is often not done.
Teaching that Jesus is fully divine and fully human is difficult too. I'm not trying to equate Catholic understanding of discipline with Catholic dogma but just point out that both can be hard to pin down conceptually. Even the Code of Canon Law seems to acknowledge this about discipline, stating in the last canon 1752 to keep in mind the salvation of souls when making judgements about following the law.
I think the concept, at least for discipline, is considerably easier than the practice. Particularly for those who find themselves under an authority figure who frequently gives bad commands. When does their objection arise because the authority figure is fallible, ignorant, evil, or otherwise wrong? When does their objection arise because they themselves are fallible, ignorant, evil, or otherwise wrong? How do we practically get along with someone whose commands are such that they frequently require objection? Particularly if he does not handle being objected to well?
Some of it is just being willing to suffer. But there's also no way to get around the logistical difficulty.
I always think of obedience to Church authorities as being along the same lines as the commandment to obey your father and mother. But St. Paul (and others) expands on this by saying "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." Eph 6:4. While the laity have an obligation to obedience and we hear about that a lot, the clergy (especially the Pope) as spiritual Fathers have a duty to not make obedience more difficult than it ought to be. To expand on Peter's point, "a bad person who abuses authority" is provoking his "children" to anger.
Yes, I have seen all sorts of theoretical speculation about how a heretical Pope might be removed. But, like nuclear war, no one wants to move from a paper exercise to the real thing.
Except in the early 15th century when there were two and after the first attempt by a council to resolve the problem three, each recognized by a substantial part of Christendom as the pope. The next council did in fact resolve the question, although there were still a few additional struggles over the issue.
Not sure this is completely true. It's true from a historical point of view that the western schism was healed in the wake of the council of Constance, but it's not clear that it was done so by the authority of the council. It would be easy to fall into conciliarism.
I'm with William on this one. Best way to deal with nuclear war is to avoid it
Yes, and conciliarism was a problem until some time after Luther. But I would argue that after arresting one claimant and getting a second to agree to resign if the council agreed that he had been the true pope, and then voting by nations rather than by cardinals for the new pope, they removed most of the political support for the remaining contender and his faction died out. But certainly conciliarism was a factor for the rest of the century, which is why Basle is not given credit for instituting the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
It seems like a question for an authority different in nature than “canonists.” Certainly their views are worth noting. But the determination seems outside their authority.
An interesting article, thank you Edgar, but does anyone really need to waste time in investigating whether Francis is a false pope? It seems bizarre to argue that Benedict didn't resign the papacy when it's clear from his behaviour that he did.
I’m just a girl, standing here, again asking the same question - why not both and? 🫠🫠🫠🫠🫠
We WANT enforcement and discipline for schismatic acts - yay! Good! All the catholic cheers! But ALSO enforcement and discipline for … other sins too? Remember the OTHER sins. 😖😣
Sorry. My emotional support sarcasm isn’t always voluntary.
Sedevacantism seems to be making a small scale comeback. There was a time in the 1980s when there were four "Real Popes" reigning - one each in Italy, Spain, Brazil and Canada. Then we had a guy who was elected Pope in a hotel in Assisi and Pius XIII issuing encyclicals from the wilds of Montana. And there was at least one other Real Pope elsewhere in the USA whose name I can't remember.
And you have the logical sedevacatists over at Novus Ordo Watch. They are what I call Micawberite theologians - waiting for something to turn up. They wisely refuse to add another Real Pope to this parade of lunacy. But they have no idea of how a really Real Pope might appear and be recognised in future. Which, as they claim that there has no true Pope since 1958, might still be decades or centuries away.
The other American "pontiff" was Michael I who lived with his parents in Kansas. After his death he was succeeded by "Pope" Michael II who resides in the Philippines.
I suppose that the unanswerable question is whether it would have been worse if he'd stayed on? Whichever the case, one can't really expect an honest and conscientious person to remain in an important post if they realise that the job is becoming beyond their capability. Maybe time for a retirement age? That might also mean that there was a reduction in the age of popes when elected.
I feel like a great many people would have their minds eased by learning more about the pornocracy and Benedict IX. No matter your opinion on Francis, we’ve had far worse occupy the see.
THIS is what I come back to again and again with my children as we study history. Not only have we always had bad guys doing bad things bc original sin, but whenever we’re tempted to think that mccarick - who did objectively evil diabolical things - is our lowest point and how can we recover from him (and rupnik and the Ive guy now and the RC guy and and and FREAKING AND), we turn the page of the history book and are like “holy heck we made it thru THESE guys?!?”
Phew. The Holy Spirit is truly running the show. Blessed be the Name of the Lord
(TBF some weeks I need to remind myself of this more than others )
+Francis will have to answer for these people at his Particular Judgement.
This headline makes you wonder: how many figures were excommunicated for these kinds of public dissents in 1931? In 1961? How many convents were suppressed for this stuff in the 150 years prior to Vatican II?
There comes a point where you just look at the trend and say: “while I can’t justify them leaving the Church… I can understand it. While I can’t justify their dissent and calling him an antipope… I get why he’d say that”
When enough people come to these conclusions month after month, year after year, maybe the blame needs to be shared with person who is evidently causing such scandal that swaths of people are ending up in this spot.
Just remember: more people left the Catholic Church in the 50 years following the close of the Second Vatican Council than in the first 50 years of the Protestant Revolution.
But what percentage of the population were they, and are you counting people who left and then returned and maybe even left again? Or one whom someone else said was out when they never intended to be out or were formally excommunicated (like Cardinal Cajetan)?
Trying to rationalize why it may not have been quite as bad as the Protestant Reformation isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of a council that was supposed to bring on a new spring time in the world and Church.
I'm not at all anti VII, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that its fruit has been exceedingly bitter. Especially its liturgical project that had the largest impact on every day Catholics
I was young and really appreciated the liturgical reforms. But the oldest two in my family received real religious instruction in our Catholic schools while the rest of them got 12 years of Jesus loves you.
I have a theory. And it's only a theory. Many of those in your generation liked the reform because first, you experienced the traditional rite in a time in which it had lost it's vigor and had become somewhat ossified in practice. The reforms as implemented were implemented by people of your generation for people of your generation. But because the new rite was largely cut off from the tradition, it doesn't have the ability to speak to the generations that followed. It now needs to be recreated for each new generation.
This is an oversimplification of course. In reality there was a massive falling away in the immediate aftermath of the council. The reforms obviously didn't speak to your whole generation. And it's true that some younger people experience the new rite with joy. What's undeniable in my mind is that it hasn't lived up to its promises. And in my opinion, it never will. Until that's generally accepted, there will be suffering
The reforms were implemented by members of my parents' generation, not mine. And the reason why they were necessary was that ossified is polite. I used my missal to see if I could read the Latin I did not understand faster than the priest could say it. People prayed the rosary instead of paying attention except when the altar bells rang. I am part of the generation which followed. And I would argue that it does have the ability to speak to future generations when it is said as it should be said. There was a massive falling off before the council which the council was called to try to rectify.
A local book club here in Kentucky is reading Set Apart by Fr. Mike Schmitz. In it he writes about a man from China who was tortured for three weeks to get him to renounce his faith which he refused to do. Then they gave up and released him. When he came to the US he was delighted to find he could worship daily and did so with joy. However, he then discovered that the more he worked the better off he was in this world and he gradually left the practice of the faith to work. So I suspect that the underlying problem with the faith both before and after Vatican II is the secular world we live in.
I do not question the need for reform. Only the method and content. It's undeniable in my experience that people your age are largely happy and resistant to any reform of the reform type stuff. Of course it's not 100%, but I've seen it for too long and at at too many places not to be fully convinced of it. The NO is meaningful to you.The opposite is true of my generation.
The theory part is that the way the reforms were undertaken largely cut them off from the tradition and therefore made for a situation where constant innovation was necessary to keep them relevant
Just what do you mean by people my age? I was a child when the original reforms happened. The last reforms were in the 2010s. And I find it amusing that you think you can speak for your entire generation.
If you were a kid when the reforms happened you are around my parents age. They see the world similar to you. Especially my mom interestingly enough. This is an observation, not a criticism. I'm quite fond of my parents
Where did you get the crazy idea that I think I speak for my entire generation? I'm talking about my experience. There's a reason why younger priests tend to be more traditional. There's a reason why more traditional communities tend towards being younger. These things that many many have commented on aren't made up.
My theory is not that very common observation. My theory is the why.
"The NO is meaningful to you. The opposite is true of my generation." That sounds to me like you are trying to speak for your entire generation. I recently moved from an area with both NO and FSSP parishes. I attended the NO parish. I have an older than me friend who prefers the FSSP. Since I didn't go there I don't know what their average ages are. I know she had a son and his family in one of the parishes and a daughter and her family in the other. The parish I attended was full of young parents with lots of children. I have no idea of the local FSSP parish. I don't have a lot of patience with stereotypes of other people based on age or race or any other irrelevant personal characteristics.
Please go reread the thread before making a caricature of what I said. It's impossible to speak with full specificity in everything you say.
The ironic thing about how this conversation has proceeded is how closely it aligns with my previous experience trying to talk to people older than me about liturgy. You'll notice that there's been absolutely nothing said about the point I was making. All you've done is question the premise. This is the very reason I stopped talking about it and just decided it was time to move on from my typical liturgy parish. Nobody who had influence (the priest and older parishioners with money) were interested in it, and I was loathe to be "that guy" that the priest wanted to avoid.
This despite the fact that it's simply undeniable that younger priests and families tend towards more traditional liturgy as compared to older generations. And the younger you are the more traditional you're likely to be. No this isn't an absolute, but it's certainly a trend or a tendency. Isn't this something worth exploring instead of explaining away?
Where are these people coming from? Did the run of canonizable popes from Leo XIII through JPII leave Catholics spoiled and unrealistic? Is there really anything Francis has bungled that is unlike other papal blunders of the last 20 centuries?
If only we had a word for those who, like the Anglicans, claim to be "Catholic" while also exercising a personal magisterium to protest against Petrine authority.
Something has gone seriously wrong in the minds of many Catholics, who cannot say "this is a bad person who abuses authority and needs to repent for his own soul's sake" without concocting hare-brained theories to the effect that a bad person never had any authority. I think it's the general failure of teaching about authority that characterizes all modern thought, signally including Counter-Reformation theories of the papacy.
Regardless, it's ugly and stupid.
It's the mirror image of the ugliness and stupidity of refusing to say someone is wicked and abusive *because* he has authority!
"You're not my real daddy" (or mommy), shouts the child in the grocery store (stereotypically; mine just silently bolted whenever they were dissatisfied and I had to go find them. Oh I remember the time one refused to leave the cat food aisle without a stack of cat food for the cat he wished I would get him but fortunately when you get to the checkout you can simply say to the cashier "we are not buying *this*" and they set it aside.)
Heh. Yeah, I was a "oh-so-helpful helper" and an item-adder aa a kid.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
But I also think it's a pendulum swing from the previous teaching about authority, which put way too much emphasis on blind obedience, or otherwise substituting the brain of those in authority for those under them. It's certainly not the Thomistic view of authority, but it was very popular, in the Church, for a long time.
With this view of authority ensconced, a rational person will either reject authority or will reject bad or stupid authority figures as having valid authority. God cannot command blind obedience to someone who will dump you in a pit. So either, the obedience part must be wrong, or the someone who will dump you in a pit must not actually be an authority.
Simultaneously teaching both obedience, and that it definitely cannot be blind, is hard, therefore it is often not done.
Teaching that Jesus is fully divine and fully human is difficult too. I'm not trying to equate Catholic understanding of discipline with Catholic dogma but just point out that both can be hard to pin down conceptually. Even the Code of Canon Law seems to acknowledge this about discipline, stating in the last canon 1752 to keep in mind the salvation of souls when making judgements about following the law.
I think the concept, at least for discipline, is considerably easier than the practice. Particularly for those who find themselves under an authority figure who frequently gives bad commands. When does their objection arise because the authority figure is fallible, ignorant, evil, or otherwise wrong? When does their objection arise because they themselves are fallible, ignorant, evil, or otherwise wrong? How do we practically get along with someone whose commands are such that they frequently require objection? Particularly if he does not handle being objected to well?
Some of it is just being willing to suffer. But there's also no way to get around the logistical difficulty.
I always think of obedience to Church authorities as being along the same lines as the commandment to obey your father and mother. But St. Paul (and others) expands on this by saying "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." Eph 6:4. While the laity have an obligation to obedience and we hear about that a lot, the clergy (especially the Pope) as spiritual Fathers have a duty to not make obedience more difficult than it ought to be. To expand on Peter's point, "a bad person who abuses authority" is provoking his "children" to anger.
I wonder if it is the competence of canonists to opine and determine whether Francis is a false Pope?
The consensus in the Renaissance period was that it was the prerogative of a Church Council to do so.
Yes, I have seen all sorts of theoretical speculation about how a heretical Pope might be removed. But, like nuclear war, no one wants to move from a paper exercise to the real thing.
Except in the early 15th century when there were two and after the first attempt by a council to resolve the problem three, each recognized by a substantial part of Christendom as the pope. The next council did in fact resolve the question, although there were still a few additional struggles over the issue.
Not sure this is completely true. It's true from a historical point of view that the western schism was healed in the wake of the council of Constance, but it's not clear that it was done so by the authority of the council. It would be easy to fall into conciliarism.
I'm with William on this one. Best way to deal with nuclear war is to avoid it
Yes, and conciliarism was a problem until some time after Luther. But I would argue that after arresting one claimant and getting a second to agree to resign if the council agreed that he had been the true pope, and then voting by nations rather than by cardinals for the new pope, they removed most of the political support for the remaining contender and his faction died out. But certainly conciliarism was a factor for the rest of the century, which is why Basle is not given credit for instituting the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
It seems like a question for an authority different in nature than “canonists.” Certainly their views are worth noting. But the determination seems outside their authority.
An interesting article, thank you Edgar, but does anyone really need to waste time in investigating whether Francis is a false pope? It seems bizarre to argue that Benedict didn't resign the papacy when it's clear from his behaviour that he did.
"Another Italian priest excommunicated after calling Francis ‘antipope’"
Now do Rupnik.
I’m just a girl, standing here, again asking the same question - why not both and? 🫠🫠🫠🫠🫠
We WANT enforcement and discipline for schismatic acts - yay! Good! All the catholic cheers! But ALSO enforcement and discipline for … other sins too? Remember the OTHER sins. 😖😣
Sorry. My emotional support sarcasm isn’t always voluntary.
Benedict XVI: Yeah guys, I'm no longer pope.
These guys: He's still pope.
Benedict XVI: Sorry, but I'm not.
These guys: He's still pope!
Sedevacantism seems to be making a small scale comeback. There was a time in the 1980s when there were four "Real Popes" reigning - one each in Italy, Spain, Brazil and Canada. Then we had a guy who was elected Pope in a hotel in Assisi and Pius XIII issuing encyclicals from the wilds of Montana. And there was at least one other Real Pope elsewhere in the USA whose name I can't remember.
And you have the logical sedevacatists over at Novus Ordo Watch. They are what I call Micawberite theologians - waiting for something to turn up. They wisely refuse to add another Real Pope to this parade of lunacy. But they have no idea of how a really Real Pope might appear and be recognised in future. Which, as they claim that there has no true Pope since 1958, might still be decades or centuries away.
The other American "pontiff" was Michael I who lived with his parents in Kansas. After his death he was succeeded by "Pope" Michael II who resides in the Philippines.
Thanks! Pope Michael illustrates one massive problem with a lot of these Real Popes: who will succeed the current Real Pope?
Without excusing any of the Sedevacantists, almost 12 years on, I think it's safe to say that Benedict's abdication was not good for the Church.
I suppose that the unanswerable question is whether it would have been worse if he'd stayed on? Whichever the case, one can't really expect an honest and conscientious person to remain in an important post if they realise that the job is becoming beyond their capability. Maybe time for a retirement age? That might also mean that there was a reduction in the age of popes when elected.
Oddest part, to me, is that he was ordained in 2023.
I feel like a great many people would have their minds eased by learning more about the pornocracy and Benedict IX. No matter your opinion on Francis, we’ve had far worse occupy the see.
THIS is what I come back to again and again with my children as we study history. Not only have we always had bad guys doing bad things bc original sin, but whenever we’re tempted to think that mccarick - who did objectively evil diabolical things - is our lowest point and how can we recover from him (and rupnik and the Ive guy now and the RC guy and and and FREAKING AND), we turn the page of the history book and are like “holy heck we made it thru THESE guys?!?”
Phew. The Holy Spirit is truly running the show. Blessed be the Name of the Lord
(TBF some weeks I need to remind myself of this more than others )
+Francis will have to answer for these people at his Particular Judgement.
This headline makes you wonder: how many figures were excommunicated for these kinds of public dissents in 1931? In 1961? How many convents were suppressed for this stuff in the 150 years prior to Vatican II?
There comes a point where you just look at the trend and say: “while I can’t justify them leaving the Church… I can understand it. While I can’t justify their dissent and calling him an antipope… I get why he’d say that”
When enough people come to these conclusions month after month, year after year, maybe the blame needs to be shared with person who is evidently causing such scandal that swaths of people are ending up in this spot.
Just remember: more people left the Catholic Church in the 50 years following the close of the Second Vatican Council than in the first 50 years of the Protestant Revolution.
But what percentage of the population were they, and are you counting people who left and then returned and maybe even left again? Or one whom someone else said was out when they never intended to be out or were formally excommunicated (like Cardinal Cajetan)?
Trying to rationalize why it may not have been quite as bad as the Protestant Reformation isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of a council that was supposed to bring on a new spring time in the world and Church.
I'm not at all anti VII, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that its fruit has been exceedingly bitter. Especially its liturgical project that had the largest impact on every day Catholics
I was young and really appreciated the liturgical reforms. But the oldest two in my family received real religious instruction in our Catholic schools while the rest of them got 12 years of Jesus loves you.
I have a theory. And it's only a theory. Many of those in your generation liked the reform because first, you experienced the traditional rite in a time in which it had lost it's vigor and had become somewhat ossified in practice. The reforms as implemented were implemented by people of your generation for people of your generation. But because the new rite was largely cut off from the tradition, it doesn't have the ability to speak to the generations that followed. It now needs to be recreated for each new generation.
This is an oversimplification of course. In reality there was a massive falling away in the immediate aftermath of the council. The reforms obviously didn't speak to your whole generation. And it's true that some younger people experience the new rite with joy. What's undeniable in my mind is that it hasn't lived up to its promises. And in my opinion, it never will. Until that's generally accepted, there will be suffering
The reforms were implemented by members of my parents' generation, not mine. And the reason why they were necessary was that ossified is polite. I used my missal to see if I could read the Latin I did not understand faster than the priest could say it. People prayed the rosary instead of paying attention except when the altar bells rang. I am part of the generation which followed. And I would argue that it does have the ability to speak to future generations when it is said as it should be said. There was a massive falling off before the council which the council was called to try to rectify.
A local book club here in Kentucky is reading Set Apart by Fr. Mike Schmitz. In it he writes about a man from China who was tortured for three weeks to get him to renounce his faith which he refused to do. Then they gave up and released him. When he came to the US he was delighted to find he could worship daily and did so with joy. However, he then discovered that the more he worked the better off he was in this world and he gradually left the practice of the faith to work. So I suspect that the underlying problem with the faith both before and after Vatican II is the secular world we live in.
I do not question the need for reform. Only the method and content. It's undeniable in my experience that people your age are largely happy and resistant to any reform of the reform type stuff. Of course it's not 100%, but I've seen it for too long and at at too many places not to be fully convinced of it. The NO is meaningful to you.The opposite is true of my generation.
The theory part is that the way the reforms were undertaken largely cut them off from the tradition and therefore made for a situation where constant innovation was necessary to keep them relevant
Just what do you mean by people my age? I was a child when the original reforms happened. The last reforms were in the 2010s. And I find it amusing that you think you can speak for your entire generation.
If you were a kid when the reforms happened you are around my parents age. They see the world similar to you. Especially my mom interestingly enough. This is an observation, not a criticism. I'm quite fond of my parents
Where did you get the crazy idea that I think I speak for my entire generation? I'm talking about my experience. There's a reason why younger priests tend to be more traditional. There's a reason why more traditional communities tend towards being younger. These things that many many have commented on aren't made up.
My theory is not that very common observation. My theory is the why.
"The NO is meaningful to you. The opposite is true of my generation." That sounds to me like you are trying to speak for your entire generation. I recently moved from an area with both NO and FSSP parishes. I attended the NO parish. I have an older than me friend who prefers the FSSP. Since I didn't go there I don't know what their average ages are. I know she had a son and his family in one of the parishes and a daughter and her family in the other. The parish I attended was full of young parents with lots of children. I have no idea of the local FSSP parish. I don't have a lot of patience with stereotypes of other people based on age or race or any other irrelevant personal characteristics.
Please go reread the thread before making a caricature of what I said. It's impossible to speak with full specificity in everything you say.
The ironic thing about how this conversation has proceeded is how closely it aligns with my previous experience trying to talk to people older than me about liturgy. You'll notice that there's been absolutely nothing said about the point I was making. All you've done is question the premise. This is the very reason I stopped talking about it and just decided it was time to move on from my typical liturgy parish. Nobody who had influence (the priest and older parishioners with money) were interested in it, and I was loathe to be "that guy" that the priest wanted to avoid.
This despite the fact that it's simply undeniable that younger priests and families tend towards more traditional liturgy as compared to older generations. And the younger you are the more traditional you're likely to be. No this isn't an absolute, but it's certainly a trend or a tendency. Isn't this something worth exploring instead of explaining away?
Where are these people coming from? Did the run of canonizable popes from Leo XIII through JPII leave Catholics spoiled and unrealistic? Is there really anything Francis has bungled that is unlike other papal blunders of the last 20 centuries?
How many priests/ bishops/ cardinals has Rome excommunicated or cancelled the last 5 years?
Then you have the priests/ bishops/ cardinals that Rome should excommunicate or turn over to the police that Rome protects.
Some common sense seems to be required. Maybe that is why we cannot find new priests.....
If only we had a word for those who, like the Anglicans, claim to be "Catholic" while also exercising a personal magisterium to protest against Petrine authority.